DongHyeonkaandClaude Opus 5
b2963105a8
The keycloak project ended with four open questions that design could not
settle. A two-VM lab was built to answer them by measurement, and this is
that material: 26 experiments, 125 raw command outputs, 22 browser captures.
Follows the import procedure in README.md.
source/ the originating repository verbatim — 78 documents, 28 SVGs,
8 manifests, plus .source-revision recording the commit
final/ the SSOT
document.md 729 lines written from the 29 experiment documents, not
concatenated: what was predicted, what was measured, and
where the measurement itself was wrong
evidence/raw 125 outputs, flattened to <experiment>__<file> because
the originals collided (01-baseline.txt appeared three
times) and the audit only globs the top level
evidence/meta one per raw file; command and exitCode are null and the
README says why rather than inventing them
evidence/browser 22 captures
assets/ three diagrams through techviz
.techviz/ their VizSpecs
A separate project rather than an addition to keycloak: the B-layer answers
that project's four questions, but the A, C and D layers are about cluster
failure, SSO and operations, and one document.md should hold one subject.
The four question records there can point here through 관계.
Recorded rather than papered over: only three of the 28 diagrams were
remade. The repository forbids hand-drawn SVG and forbids titles inside the
canvas; all 28 originals carry both, so converting them is redrawing, not
reformatting. They stay in source/ and the gap is written into the document.
verify-pipeline.py passes. audit-records.py reports no issues.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
1.9 KiB
1.9 KiB
kind, slug, title, topic, project, status, sourceRevision, rootTreeNode, evidenceCapturedOn, assets, evidence, source, module
| kind | slug | title | topic | project | status | sourceRevision | rootTreeNode | evidenceCapturedOn | assets | evidence | source | module | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CONCEPT | adapter-inbound-graphql-c12 | 기계가 읽는 매니페스트와 사람이 읽는 등급표가 다르게 답한다 | state-machines-and-ownership | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-inbound-graphql-c12 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-inbound-graphql |
기계가 읽는 매니페스트와 사람이 읽는 등급표가 다르게 답한다
GraphQlStableCapabilityManifest.STABLE에 SIGNED_CURSOR_CONNECTION이 들어 있는데 CLAUDE.md 등급표는 cursor 서명을 modelled(요청 경로에 없음)로 매긴다.
본문
GraphQlStableCapabilityManifest.STABLE에 SIGNED_CURSOR_CONNECTION이 들어 있다. CLAUDE.md 등급표는 cursor 서명을 modelled(요청 경로에 없음)로 매긴다.
GraphQlStableCapabilityManifest 참조 위치
:::evidence key="adapter-inbound-graphql-c12" alt="코드베이스에서 GraphQlStableCapabilityManifest 를 검색한 출력 11줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="GraphQlStableCapabilityManifest 코드베이스 검색 — 11줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
용도가 달라도 답이 갈리는 것은 남는다
두 목록의 용도가 다르다 — 매니페스트는 requireStable(capability)로 릴리스 게이트가 소비하는 기계 판정이고, 등급표는 사람이 읽는 공시다. 그러나 같은 능력에 대해 하나는 "Stable에서 지원"이라 하고 하나는 "요청 경로에 없음"이라 한다. §29.2.